THIRD DIVISION
|
VIRGINIA M. GUADINES, Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R.
No. 164891 Present: CARPIO
MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, ABAD,* and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. |
|
SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE Respondents. |
Promulgated: June 6, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before
us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision[1] promulgated on
April 30, 2004 and Resolution[2] dated August 20,
2004 of the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioner of violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The
factual antecedents:
On
P83,228.00. On
On
November 20, P41,172.00) which were stockpiled alongside the
Polillo-Burdeos road at Barangay Sibulan, approximately five meters away from
the Navotas Bridge. They measured the confiscated lumber using
Marking Hatchet No.
On
December 14, 1992, the Sangguniang Bayan of Polillo acting upon the
petition of some 460 individuals, and after debating on whether to still wait for
the DENR officials to ascertain the identity of the contractor involved in the
illegally cut timber or to proceed with the construction of the bridge using
the confiscated lumber, resolved to formally request the DENR Regional Director
to donate the seized lumber so it can be used for the delayed repair and
construction of the Navotas Bridge. The
logs remained stockpiled near the said bridge, apparently abandoned by its
owner.[6] Later however, the Sanggunian passed a resolution (Kapasiyahan Blg. 24, t. 1993) requesting
the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) through Provincial Engineer
Abelardo Abrigo to send their personnel to work on the repair and construction
of the Navotas Bridge in the earliest possible time.[7] Azaula was among those members of the Sanggunian
who had opposed the proposal to request the DENR Regional Director for the
donation of the confiscated lumber, insisting that the contractor (petitioner)
be paid for said materials.[8]
In
his letter dated
By
P83,228.00. On P83,228.00 as payment for the lumber
and other materials she delivered for the repair and construction of
In a Memorandum dated
On P83,228.00
and for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.[13]
On P70,924.00. From
the original amount of P83,228.00, they deducted the value of the common
materials used such as nails and kawad.
The difference represents the value of the confiscated lumber actually
used in the construction of the bridge.[14]
Subsequently, a complaint was filed
before the Office of the Ombudsman by Sangguniang Bayan member May
Verzo-Estuita against petitioner, Ayuma, Azaula and Escara for violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (OMB 0-93-1388). On P83,228.00 for the
confiscated lumber.
The Information charging petitioner,
Azaula, Escara and Ayuma with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
(Criminal Case No. 20878) reads:
That in or about February of 1993, or immediately
prior or subsequent thereto, in Polillo, Quezon, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, accused Bernie H. Azaula, Rosendo N. Escara, Namie V.
Ayuma, being the Barangay Captain, Municipal Mayor and Municipal Treasurer,
respectively, of Polillo, Quezon, in the exercise of their administrative
and/or official functions, with evident bad faith, conspiring and confederating
with accused Virginia M. Guadinez, doing business under the V.M. Guadinez Construction
Supply, did then and there wi[l]lfully and unlawfully cause undue injury and/or
damage to the province of Quezon, by using in the construction of the Navotas
Bridge in Sibulan, Polillo, Quezon, confiscated lumber consisting of 73
pieces with a volume of 4,172 board
feet, valued at P11,172.00, more or less, and make it appear in a Disbursement
Voucher, Delivery Receipt No. 0063, and Inspection Report dated January 28,
1993, that the lumber used in the construction of the Navotas Bridge were purchased
from the V.M. Guadinez Construction Supply for P83,228.00, thus enabling
accused Virginia Guadinez to receive the said purchase price, to the damage and
prejudice of the Province of Quezon, in the aforementioned amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[16]
The aforenamed respondents filed
motions for reconsideration and re-investigation with the Ombudsman. In his Order dated
After trial, the Sandiganbayan
rendered its decision convicting petitioner, Escara and Azaula of the crime
charged, as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, this Court
finds accused BERNIE H. AZAULA, ROSENDO N. ESCARA AND VIRGINIA M. GUADINES
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019,
and hereby sentences each of them to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to ten (10) years,
as maximum. They are also ordered to
pay, jointly and severally, the costs of this suit.
Accused Guadines, having unlawfully received the
amount of P70,924.00, representing payment for the confiscated lumber, is
hereby ordered to return the said amount to the
SO ORDERED.[18]
In their motion for reconsideration,[19]
petitioner and Azaula maintained that the lumber delivered by V.M. Guadines
Construction Supply were not the same lumber confiscated by the CENR. They argued that (1) the confiscated lumber
does not match the specified size, quality and quantity of the materials needed
for the bridge repair/construction project; (2) petitioner purchased the logs
from third persons there being no sawmills in the locality, and it is but
proper that she be paid for the materials she delivered; and (3) since the
municipalities of Polillo and Burdeos have benefited from the repair and
construction of the Navotas Bridge, the allegation that the Province of Quezon
suffered damage and prejudice is erroneous. As to the Sandiganbayans reliance
on the statements she made during the Sangguniang Bayan proceedings on
December 14, 1992, petitioner vehemently denied making those statements and contended that to give them probative
value would violate the rule on res inter
alios acta. Petitioner further asserted
that she acted in good faith, as in fact no Sangguniang Bayan member
interposed an objection to the payment made in her favor.
In its
Hence, this petition alleging that the
Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in finding that she acted in
conspiracy with Azaula and Escara in defrauding the provincial government under
their contract for purchase of construction materials.
Petitioner reiterates her argument
that the materials she delivered on
On the
allegation of conspiracy, petitioner contends that evidence is wanting to
support the prosecution case against her.
A finding of guilt must not be based on speculation, such as the lumber
she delivered were the ones confiscated later by the DENR. Indeed, the lumber
left along the highway exposed it to possibilities which include substitution. Even if the materials used in the repair and
construction of
The petition has no merit.
Well-entrenched is the rule that factual
findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court
except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3)
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on
misapprehension of facts and the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are
premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on
record.[22] Petitioner
failed to establish any of the foregoing exceptional circumstances.
On the contrary, the evidence on record clearly showed
petitioners participation in the anomalous disbursement of government funds in
favor of a private contractor for lumber which have been validly seized by CENR
forest rangers. The inspection of
deliveries and acceptance by the provincial government through Ayuma and Escara
who certified in the Inspection Report that lumber delivered by petitioner were
found to be in good order and condition relates only to the physical aspect
and compliance with specifications as to quality, quantity and size of the
materials. Said certification did not
state whether the lumber delivered by petitioner have been cut or gathered in
accordance with existing forestry laws, rules and regulations. Petitioner could have readily substantiated
her defense by producing documents, such as permits and Certificate of
Timber/Lumber Origin, allegedly secured by persons from whom she bought the
lumber, or presenting as witnesses those workers who supposedly cut the trees
and hauled the logs. But none of these
were presented at the trial. Hence, the
prosecution evidence showing the lumber delivered by petitioner to have been
illegally cut and gathered, stands unrebutted.
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section
3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, which provides:
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. -- In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing
law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to
any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers
and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions. (Emphasis supplied.)
The
essential elements of this crime are: (1) the accused are public officers or
private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) said public officers
commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or
in relation to their public position; (3) they caused undue injury to any
party, whether the government or a private party; (4) such injury is caused by
giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and (5)
the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence.[23]
We
explained the foregoing elements in
As may be
noted, what contextually is punishable is the act of causing any undue injury
to any party, or the giving to any private party of unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of the public officers functions.
In Uy vs. Sandiganbayan, and again in Santiago
vs. Garchitorena, the Court has made it abundantly clear that the use of
the disjunctive word or connotes that either act of (a) causing any undue
injury to any party, including the Government; and (b) giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference, qualifies as a
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended. This is not to
say, however, that each mode constitutes a distinct offense but that an accused
may be proceeded against under either or both modes.
x x x x
The term undue
injury in the context of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act
punishing the act of causing undue injury to any party, has a meaning akin to
that civil law concept of actual damage. The Court said so in Llorente
vs. Sandiganbayan, thus:
In
jurisprudence, undue injury is
consistently interpreted as actual damage. Undue has been defined as more than necessary, not proper, [or]
illegal; and injury as any wrong or damage done to another, either
in his person, rights, reputation or property [; that is, the] invasion of any
legally protected interest of another. Actual damage, in the context of these
definitions, is akin to that in civil law. (Emphasis supplied.)
By accepting payment for delivery
of lumber found to be without supporting documents as required by law,
petitioner caused undue injury or damage to the provincial government which had
no obligation to pay for confiscated lumber considered as government
property. In fact, it is only the DENR
Secretary or his representative who can dispose of such confiscated lumber in
accordance with forestry laws and regulations, pursuant to Section 68-A of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 705 (otherwise known as the Forestry Code of the
Philippines), as amended by Executive Order No. 277, which provides:
SEC. 68-A. Administrative
Authority of the Department Head or His Duly Authorized Representative to Order
Confiscation. - In all cases of violations of this Code or other forest
laws[,] rules and regulations, the Department Head or his duly authorized
representative, may order the confiscation of any forest products illegally
cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, and all conveyances used
either by land, water[,] or air in the commission of the offense and to dispose of the same in accordance with
pertinent laws, regulations or policies on the matter.
Petitioners
contention that she should have been instead prosecuted for illegal cutting,
gathering and possession of timber or other forest products under Section 68 of
P.D. No. 705 ignores the fact that she never came out to claim ownership of the
seized lumber until her appearance before the Sangguniang Bayan wherein
she pleaded for consideration in the delayed bridge construction project after
the DENR confiscated the lumber she delivered. Except for her bare denial,
petitioner failed to refute the correctness of the statements she made as
reflected in the official minutes of the Sanggunian session held on
Ang sumunod na binigyang pahintulot upang magbigay ng
kanyang pahayag ay si Gng. Virginia Guadines, ang nagtatapat na Contractor ng
tulay ng Barangay Sibulan, o tulay Nabotas ayon sa pagkilala ng DPWH. Ayon sa kanya siya bilang contractor ng
nabanggit na proyekto ay nalulungkot sa pagkaabala nito dahilan nga sa
nangyaring paghuli ng mga tauhan ng Forestry sa mga kahoy na gagamitin sa
tulay. Nalaman din niya na bunga nito ay nagkakaroon ng parang
pagpafaction-faction sa Sangguniang Bayan.
Nais niyang ipagunita na ito ay isang public knowledge na siya ang
nanalong bidder sa ginanap na public bidding na nasabing proyekto at nalalaman
ng lahat na siya ay hindi makakapag-provide ng kahoy na gagamitin sa nasabing
tulay. Nang mga panahong iyon nga ay
kailangang magtungo siya sa Lucban, Quezon para sa pagkoku[m]pleto ng mga
kailangang papeles sa nasabing kontrata, kayat siya ay nakisuyo ng taong
mangangasiwa sa pagkuha ng kahoy. Ngayon
na nangyari ang hindi inaasahan ay hinihiling niya na tayo ay magtulungan na
maipatapos ang tulay na ito alang-alang sa kapakanan ng mga taong magdaraan sa
nasabing tulay oras na ito ay matapos.
Nalalaman niya na siya ay mayroong pagkukulang,
ngunit hinihiling niya sa Sangguniang Bayan na bigyan na siya ng konsiderasyon
sa pangyayaring ito , total ay pinapayagan na pala ngayon ang pagputol ng kahoy
kung gagamitin sa mga government projects.
Ang nabanggit na kautusan ay
We find no grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the Sandiganbayan when it cited the pertinent portions of the
minutes of the Sangguniang Bayan session of
Thus, the
Court accords full recognition to the minutes as the official
repository of what actually transpires in every proceeding. It has happened
that the minutes may be corrected to reflect the true account
of a proceeding, thus giving the Court more reason to accord them great weight
for such subsequent corrections, if any, are made precisely to preserve the
accuracy of the records. In light of the conflicting claims of the parties in
the case at bar, the Court, without resorting to the minutes,
will encounter difficulty in resolving the dispute at hand.[27]
Apart from petitioners own
statements, the Sandiganbayans finding that it was petitioners lumber which
were later confiscated by CENR forest rangers and used in the bridge repair and
construction, was satisfactorily established by the prosecutions documentary
and testimonial evidence. As part of
their official duties and following standard procedure, they prepared the
Confiscation Report and Seizure Receipt, and testified in court detailing the
incident. Two other witnesses corroborated
their declaration that the confiscated lumber were actually used in the repair
and construction of the
Johnny V. Abanica, a Construction
Maintenance employee of the PEO, testified that sometime in February 1993, his
supervisor, Engr. Felixberto Nierva, informed him that they were going to
construct the
Salvosa who led the CENR team who
seized the lumber, likewise testified that in February 1993, upon being
verbally informed by their field personnel, Forest Rangers Odelon Azul, Arnel
F. Simon and Edwin Hernandez, he went to the construction site. He saw for himself that the lumber used in
the new bridge were marked with DENR CONFISCATED and hatchet number
1742. Thereafter, he prepared a
Memorandum-Report addressed to the CENR of Real, Quezon informing the latter of
utilization of confiscated lumber without prior approval of their office and
despite repeated warnings from their forest rangers, which report was endorsed
to the DENR Regional Director.[29]
Dela Cruz, the CENRO of Real, Quezon,
also testified that after receiving the Memorandum-Report of Salvosa, he informed
the Regional Executive Director, DENR-Region IV about the matter with the
recommendation that a legal officer be sent to Polillo to assist them in filing
the proper complaint. He also wrote
Azaula requiring him to explain but since Azaula did not respond to his letter,
the case was referred to their legal division.[30]
Lastly, COA Auditor Mendoza, who,
along with the Municipal Engineer of Polillo, was tasked to investigate the
purchase of the materials used in the repair and construction of the Navotas
Bridge after the completion of the project, also confirmed that the lumber used
bore the white paint marking DENR and contained hatchet numbers when they
inspected the same from under the new wooden bridge. He prepared three reports
explaining his findings. He then recommended
to the Provincial Auditor that the money paid to the supplier be refunded to
the government and that administrative and criminal actions be instituted
against the supplier and the concerned public officials. Consequently, the COA disallowed the payment
of the amount of P70,924.00, deducting from the original amount of P83,228.00
the amount paid for common materials such as kawad and nails. The lumber
used in the new bridge consisted of 3,172 board feet while the volume of the confiscated
lumber was around 4,000 board feet.[31]
In support of her claim that the
lumber she delivered were not those confiscated by the CENR personnel,
petitioner presented as witness PO2 Reny I. Marasigan of the PNP Polillo
Station. Marasigan testified that he
issued a certification dated June 9, 2000 stating that the lumber confiscated
near the Navotas Bridge in 1993 were deposited for safekeeping and are still
intact at the back of their building.
These rotting lumber on the ground were photographed by petitioner.[32] However, Marasigan failed to present proper
documents evidencing the official transfer of custody of the seized lumber by
the CENRO to their headquarters. In
fact, Marasigan signed the Confiscation Report and Seizure Receipt as part of
the apprehending team[33] while it was
Azaula who signed as the Receiving Officer.[34] Moreover, prosecution witnesses Salvosa and
his forest rangers, as well as Abanica and
As to petitioners contention that
the subsequent confiscation of the lumber she delivered, even if true, was no
longer her concern because she had already fulfilled her contractual
undertaking to provide the lumber for the bridge repair and construction, the same is untenable.
Basic is the rule that provisions of
existing laws and regulations are read into and form an integral part of
contracts, moreso in the case of government contracts. Verily, all contracts,
including Government contracts, are subject to the police power of the
State. Being an inherent attribute of
sovereignty, such power is deemed incorporated into the laws of the land, which
are part of all contracts, thereby qualifying the obligations arising
therefrom.[35] Thus, it is an implied condition in the
subject contract for the procurement of materials needed in the repair and
construction of the
Petitioners actual knowledge of the
absence of supporting legal documents for the lumber she contracted to deliver
to the provincial government -- which resulted in its confiscation by the CENR
personnel -- belies her claim of good faith in receiving the payment for the
said lumber.
When
the defendants by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part,
and the other performing another part so as to complete it, with a view to the
attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent,
were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal
association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments, the court will be
justified in concluding that said defendants were engaged in a conspiracy.[36] In this case, the finding of conspiracy was
well-supported by evidence.
Indeed, petitioners participation
and cooperation was indispensable in defrauding the government of the amount
paid for the said confiscated lumber. Without doubt, her acts in making
delivery to Azaula instead of the provincial government or PEO, evading
apprehension for the illegally cut logs and yet pursuing clearance for the
release of the said products by appealing to the local sanggunian, and
later accepting payment with the assistance of Azaula and Escara -- all clearly
showed her complicity in the anomalous disbursement of provincial government
funds allocated for the bridge repair/construction project. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan did not err
in finding her guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and
ordering her to return the amount corresponding to the payment for the
confiscated lumber used in the construction of the
The penalty for violation of Section
3(e) of R.A. No 3019 is imprisonment for not less than six years and one month
nor more than fifteen years, and perpetual disqualification from public office.[37] Under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is punished by special law, as in
the present case, an indeterminate penalty shall be imposed on the accused, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the law, and the
minimum not less than the minimum prescribed therein.[38]
In view of the attendant circumstances, we hold that the penalty imposed by the
Sandiganbayan is in accord with law and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, the
petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated
With
costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson, Third Division |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Courts Division.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
*
Designated additional member per
Special Order No. 997 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 33-73. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and concurred in by Presiding Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario (who was appointed to this Court and now retired) and Associate Justice Teresita V. Diaz-Baldos.
[2]
[3] TSN,
[4]
[5] TSN,
[6] Exhibits O and P.
[7] Exhibit BB-3.
[8] TSN,
[9] Exhibits F and I.
[10] TSN,
[11] Exhibit M.
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14]
[15] Rollo, pp. 87-92.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Art. 1240. Payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor in interest, or any person authorized to receive it.
[21] Rollo, pp. 81-85.
[22] Ong v. People, G.R. No. 176546, September 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 47, 53, citing Suller v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 153686, July 22, 2003, 407 SCRA 201, 208.
[23] Dugayon
v. People, G.R. No. 147333,
[24] G.R. No. 161877,
[25] Exhibit
O-2.
[26] G.R.
No. 121215,
[27] Cited
in Regidor,
Jr. v. People, G.R. Nos. 166086-92,
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30] TSN,
[31] TSN,
[32] TSN,
[33] Exhibits A and B.
[34] Exhibit A-2.
[35] Bartolome C. Fernandez, Jr., A Treatise on
Government Contracts Under Philippine Law, 2003 Rev. Ed., p. 39, citing Central
Bank v. Cloribel, No. L-26971,
[36] Baldebrin
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 144950-71,
[37] Ong v. People, supra note 22 at 56, citing Section 9, R.A. No. 3019.
[38] Ong v.
People, id. at 56-57,
citing Nacaytuna v. People, G.R No.
171144,